Globalization and Its Discontents - Contents of The Book

Contents of The Book

The theories which guide the IMF's policies are empirically flawed. Free market, neoclassical, and neoliberal are all essentially euphemisms for the disastrous laissez-faire economics of the late 19th century. This approach seeks to minimize the role of government—arguing that lower wages solve problems of unemployment, and relying upon trickle-down economics (the belief that growth and wealth will trickle down to all segments of society) to address poverty. Stiglitz finds no evidence to support this belief, and considers the 'Washington Consensus' policy of free markets to be a blend of ideology and bad science.

Stiglitz was awarded the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences (shared with George Akerlof and Michael Spence) for demonstrating how information affects markets. Without equal access to information between employer and employee, company and consumer, or (in the IMF's case) lender and debtor, there is no chance of "free" markets operating efficiently—which is to say fairly. (This explanation also owes much to the earlier Nobel work of Kenneth Arrow and Gérard Debreu.)

The IMF, WTO, and World Bank lack transparency and accountability. Without government oversight, they reach decisions without public debate and resolve trade disputes involving "uncompetitive" or "onerous" environmental, labor, and capital laws in secret tribunals—without appeal to a nation's courts.

In East Asia's financial crisis, Russia's failed conversion to a market economy, failed development in sub-Saharan Africa, and financial meltdown in Argentina, Stiglitz argues that IMF policies contributed to a disaster: It failed to promote productive investment opportunities and demand for credit of quality; only well-planned loans, based on high quality economic and sector work, lead to improved design, effective implementation, and lower cost. It is better to spend more time getting the program right than to lend prematurely. however, none of these was done. As a result, loans came with extensive conditions that subverted the growth of democracy, hampered local economic growth, and enriched multinational corporations.

To evaluate his conclusion, it is instructive to look at those cases where Third World development actually succeeded: South Asia and China are the world's two greatest emerging markets. South Asia repeatedly resisted IMF conditions (especially South Korea and Malaysia) and China declined any IMF money whatsoever.

According to Stiglitz, IMF interventions all followed a similar free market formula. The IMF strongly advocated "shock therapy" in a rush to market economies, without first establishing institutions to protect the public and local commerce. Local social, political, and economic considerations were largely ignored. Privatization without land reform or strong competitive policies resulted in crony capitalism, large businesses run by organized crime, and a feudal social structure without a middle class. There is no doubt that monetary aid/lending could have an important and effective role in advocating country efforts to sustain external shocks and improve economic status. however, without strong forefront progress on the policy, the aid of balance of payments help could very well be counterproductive. The consequence will be escalated levels of debt, weakened policy credibility and a lot more difficult task of adjustment in the future.

The IMF also foisted premature capital market liberalization (free flow of capital) without institutional regulation of the financial sector. This destabilized entire developing economies by causing massive inflows of 'hot' short-term investment capital; then when inflation rose, the IMF's loan conditions imposed fiscal austerity and dramatically rising interest rates. This led to widespread bankruptcies without legal protection, massive unemployment without a social safety net, and the prompt withdrawal of foreign capital. The few remaining solvent owners, with zero opportunity for business growth, stripped assets for any value they could.

With loans defaulted and entire nations thrown into economic and social chaos, the IMF rushed bailouts directed mainly to foreign creditors. This fueled speculative runs on currency, and most of the bailout money soon wound up in Swiss and Caribbean bank accounts. As a result, Third World citizens carried much of the costs and few of the benefits of IMF loans, and a moral hazard ensued among the financial community: foreign creditors made bad loans, knowing that if the debtors defaulted, the IMF would pick up the tab (see Long Term Capital Management, whose overexposure in Southeast Asia might have brought down international financial markets without a massive bailout). Meanwhile, the IMF urged cash-strapped countries to further privatize—in effect selling their assets at a fraction of their value to raise cash. Foreign corporations then bought up the assets at rock-bottom prices.

Predictably, great resentment resulted from the IMF's agenda.

Stabilization is on the agenda; job creation is not. Taxation, and its adverse effects, are on the agenda; land reform is off. There is money to bail out banks but not to pay for improved education and health services, let alone to bail out workers who are thrown out of their jobs as a result of the IMF's macroeconomic mismanagement. Ordinary people as well as many government officials and business people continue to refer to the economic and social storm that hit their nations simply as 'the IMF' — the way one would say 'the plague' or 'the Great Depression' .

John Maynard Keynes helped conceive of the IMF as a fund to help developing countries grow at full employment. So why the consistent and disastrous failure to live up to this mandate?

The IMF is pursuing not just the objectives set out in its original mandate, of enhancing global stability and ensuring that there are funds for countries facing a threat of recession to pursue expansionary policies. It is also pursuing the interests of the financial community. This means that the IMF has objectives that are often in conflict with each other .

The global financial community apparently did not see the IMF's track record as one of conflicted interests or consistent failure: IMF managing director Stanley Fischer and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin both left for multimillion dollar jobs at Citigroup.

Stiglitz believes the IMF and World Bank should be reformed, not dismantled—with a growing population, malaria and AIDS pandemics, and global environmental challenges, Keynes' mandate for equitable growth is more urgent now than ever. He advocates a gradual, sequential, and selective approach to institutional development, land reform and privatization, capital market liberalization, competition policies, worker safety nets, health infrastructure, and education. Different countries will need to follow different paths. Selective policies would direct funds to programs and governments which had success in the past.

Debt forgiveness should be extended, building on the success of the Jubilee Movement. Since the IMF loans primarily benefited foreigners and government officials, he argues it is unjust and onerous that citizens of developing nations be heavily taxed to pay them off.

Not coincidentally, Stiglitz believes that promoting local and international democracy is fundamental to reforming global economic policy. Democracy aids social stability, empowers the free flow of information, and promotes a decentralized economy upon which efficient and equitable economies rely. Extending IMF and WTO voting rights to developing countries, along with public accountability, would be a good start. For Stiglitz, promoting democracy comes before promoting business.